On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:19:52 -0700 Jacob Pan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:52:15 -0600 > Alex Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:22:56 -0700 > > Jacob Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +static int intel_iommu_unbind_pasid_table(struct iommu_domain > > > *domain, > > > + struct device *dev) > > > +{ > > > + struct intel_iommu *iommu; > > > + struct dmar_domain *dmar_domain = to_dmar_domain(domain); > > > + u8 bus, devfn; > > > + > > > + iommu = device_to_iommu(dev, &bus, &devfn); > > > + if (!iommu) > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + /* > > > + * REVISIT: we might want to clear the PASID table pointer > > > + * as part of context clear operation. Currently, it leaves > > > + * stale data but should be ignored by hardware since > > > PASIDE > > > + * is clear. > > > + */ > > > + /* ATS will be reenabled when remapping is restored */ > > > + pci_disable_ats(to_pci_dev(dev)); > > > > dev_is_pci()? > > > good to check, even thought intel iommu supports PCI only. That's not true, intel-iommu supports non-PCI devices defined in ACPI as well. Thanks, Alex
